Tax Cuts and Revenue

[jem]

by the way piezoe you also lied like a Obama adminstration offical. Reagan described the new debt as the "greatest disappointment" of his presidency... what you wrote was a very slimely misrepresentation.

Milton Friedman, wrote that the Reagan tax cuts were "one of the most important factors in the boom of the 1990s." Similarly, fellow Nobel Prize winning economist Robert A. Mundell wrote that the tax cuts "made the U.S. economy the motor for the world economy in the 1990s, on which the great revolution in information technology was able to feed."[48]

 

[piezoe]

I was commenting on the idea that tax cuts would increase revenue. Not sure what your point is.
Increased government spending was justified during the Reagan recession, but of course the spending was excessive and that's what produced the subsequent boom. Nevertheless the idea that tax cuts increase revenues has been thoroughly discredited.

There is an entire school of Zombie Trickle Down Economics. You'll have no trouble finding quotes that support that nonsense. You'll have trouble, however, finding current quotes from currently practicing economists that support the idea of tax cuts increasing revenue, though that's still a common mantra spun by populist, Republican politicians. God Bless America.

 

[jem]

Piezoe... no economist in the world can deny that after the mellon, kennedy, reagan and bush tax cuts were followed by increase in tax revenue.
Presuming you are not purposely being deceitful here... I can see you fell for the leftist trick of baselining to a model of an imaginary US economy.

Your leftist buddies create a model... and then state... this is where revenues would have been had there been no tax cuts and the economy grew at x percent.
I will call this the lamagninary line. They then say... _________'s cuts did not pay for themselves because although revenues are higher they fall short of the lamaginary line.

The lamaginary line is just model baloney... we have no idea how the economy would have responded without the tax cuts.
Tell you what if you really believe in your position... why don't you link to this supposed plethora or research on the net. Lets see the basis for these papers which claim the tax cuts did not lead to an increase in revenues. I predict we will see models and baselining instead of real data.

Surely you understand that leftist economic sophistry? correct?
Here is a tip, when you see baselining instead of real economic data... there is a 90% chance you are seeing a propaganda.

I was commenting on the idea that tax cuts would increase revenue. Not sure what your point is.
Increased government spending was justified during the Reagan recession, but of course the spending was excessive and that's what produced the subsequent boom. Nevertheless the idea that tax cuts increase revenues has been thoroughly discredited.

There is an entire school of Zombie Trickle Down Economics. You'll have no trouble finding quotes that support that nonsense. You'll have trouble, however, finding current quotes from currently practicing economists that support the idea of tax cuts increasing revenue, though that's still a common mantra spun by populist, Republican politicians. God Bless America.

 

[piezoe]

You've totally missed the point! Revenues went up, but it wasn't because of the tax cuts. You have fallen hook line and sinker for what is called the post hoc fallacy. And I happen to know you are way smarter than that. I don't know anything about "baselining" to a model of the U.S. economy, whatever that is. All of my information comes from reading the writings of economists or from personal conversation with them. And, of course, from doing my own thinking about what I have learned..

 

[bullmarket79]

Piezoe is right, Clinton raised taxes and the economy expanded and tax revenue went up so listen when Piezoe says dont fall for this false canard the elite foster on us.

 

[Tsing Tao]

We could, but understanding that would go way beyond jem's two variable algorithm, dragging in big discretionary spending increases, garbage assets, collateral debt chain money printing, bubble economies, deleveraging, and whatever else I've missed.

And it wouldn't be supportive to your argument to do so.

 

[Scataphagos]

Piezoe is right, Clinton raised taxes and the economy expanded and tax revenue went up so listen when Piezoe says dont fall for this false canard the elite foster on us.

Clinton raised taxes and had the good fortune to catch the peak of the stock market bubble.

But to his credit, he did try to reduce the size of government.... which is why he did not make my list of "Worst Presidents". Which, if you're interested.... includes ALL of the Democrat presidents of the last 100 years (except Clinton) and George Bush.

(For a few years now, I've considered who was the #1 Worst..... either Woodrow Wilson for giving us the Fed or Odumbo. Wilson was a fool and was duped. Odumbo is INTENTIONALLY TRYING TO DESTROY AMERICA.)

 

[piezoe]

Scat, It's clear you don't care for "Odumbo," but that seems a bit extreme.

 

[Ricter]

And it wouldn't be supportive to your argument to do so.

How would the consideration of other variables not support my argument, that tax cuts may or may not increase revenue depending on the influence of other variables?

 

[AAAintheBeltway]

Laffer made a simple but brilliant observation. There is a level of taxation that maximizes tax revenues. Too high and you choke off growth. Too low and you don't gt enough money.

Progressives hate this concept because their aim is not economic efficiency but power and control.